No name is dumb when it thanks those that made it financially, physically
or politically possible to get the bones out. Descriptive names are easier
on the scientists, but it would be ungrateful as well as foolish to forget
the folks who make it possible to do the science.
--Toby White
Vertebrate Notes at
http://home.houston.rr.com/vnotes/index.html
and http://www.dinodata.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Brusatte [SMTP:dinoland@mailcity.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 1:24 PM
To: j_mallon@hotmail.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Bambiraptor
Jordan Mallon wrote:
>Just out if curiosity, is the name Atlascopcosaurus also dumb because it
is
>not descriptive? If its a physical description we want, then no,
because
>it does not provide even an inkling as to the dinosaurs characteristics.
>However, I think it is descriptive in that it provides some case history
>into the background of the dinosaurs discovery (Atlas Copco was the name
of
>the company that helped excavate this dinos bones). Same case scenario
for
>Leaellynasaura (named after the discoverers daughter) and Bambiraptor
(the
>boy who found it nicknamed it Bambi because of its small and cute
>appearance).
How about Qantasaurus, named after the Australian airline? To a lesser
extent, what about dinosaurs and other creatures named after mythical
figures, like the recently named Jobaria? Sereno and his colleagues named
this sauropod after a mythical figure of Tuareg tradition (and the name
that the nomads gave the dinosaur bones). Is this 'unscientific', too?
Or, are these names dumb?
Steve
Dino Land Paleontology http://www.geocities.com/stegob
Send FREE April Fool's Greetings to your friends!
http://www.whowhere.lycos.com/redirects/American_Greetings.rdct